Gender Inequality in the Workplace
Gender disparity in the workplace is still a problem all around the globe. Women are under-represented in leadership positions, monopolize free labor, and often earn less for the same job as males. The term “intersectionality,” coined by Harris & Patton (2019), refers to a method of study that is central to women’s sexuality and gender studies. Inter-sectional methodologies consider each other constitutive; for example, people experience these various aspects of identity concurrently at work, and each shapes their meanings in different aspects of identity. In other words, they take into account that these are different components of identity concurrently at work. In other words, perceptions of gender and how others perceive a person’s gender are always influenced by race and how that individual’s race is perceived. For instance, an individual is never simply a woman, but how she is racialized affects how she is seen as a woman. As a result, gendered experience is constantly influenced by ideas of blackness, brownness, and whiteness (Porter & Byrd, 2021). An experience of race does not influence any experience of gender.
Along with races, gendered experiences are formed in the workplace by class, sexuality, and ability. Gender equality, on the other hand, is a fundamental human right. Women demand equality and the same salary and advancement opportunities as males within a company. Gender disparity in employment has long been a problem, resulting in gender discrimination (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). These inequalities create obstacles to advancement and advancement beyond a particular level of management for minorities and women (De 2017). How can we shatter the “glass ceiling” and effect change for women in a primarily male-dominated world? In this context, it is critical to examine the supporting perspectives of the fact that women are treated differently in leadership roles at work while also proposing some measures that may be taken to rectify this injustice.
The “Glass Ceiling”
According to Rathi (2018), the term “glass ceiling” refers to an unseen upper limit in companies and other organizations beyond which women find it difficult or impossible to advance in the ranks. The term “glass ceiling” is a metaphor for the unseen informal obstacles that prevent women from advancing in their careers, earning more money, and pursuing new opportunities. The “glass ceiling” metaphor also represents the constraints and obstacles faced by minority racial populations. It is referred to as “glass” since it is not always evident, and women may be unaware of its presence until they “strike” the barrier (Rathi, 2018). In other terms, it is not an intentional practice of discrimination against women. However, particular laws, practices, and attitudes may exist to create this barrier without intending to do so.
Who is affected by Glass Ceiling?
The phrase “glass ceiling” was invented lately and is usually applied to women. It refers to the statistical fact that women make up almost half of the American workforce yet account for fewer than 10% of top management in organizations (Rathi, 2018). Women seem to confront a glass barrier in that, regardless of their aptitude or achievement, male-dominated corporate America is unwilling to let them advance beyond a contrived, sub-executive management level. Moreover, glass ceilings also impact other populations, particularly minorities, several of whom have a longstanding experience of commercial involvement but have been barred from executive positions due to their color, religion, or ethnic origin. Women, on the other hand, are the demographic most negatively impacted by glass ceilings.
The glass ceiling began extremely low in the early years of commercial development in the United States. Women were formerly limited to a few labor-intensive sectors of the corporate world before the Second World War (Newman, 2016). Farming at the family level of production has always included women as partners with their male counterparts; pioneer America was an equal workplace in that regard. In comparison, the urban labor force, which evolved from the male-dominated union and craft organizations into Industrial Age institutions, was not receptive to female participation until this century. The clothing industry was the central sector into which women were forced to labor, mostly immigrant piece-workers. The First World War unlocked additional opportunities. Despite the horrors of the Great Depression, women’s office employees experienced a steady rise in percentage terms as secretaries and executive assistants in corporate America throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Nonetheless, women were mostly barred from senior executive roles in corporate America. As per Newman (2016), the Hollywood movies that portrayed Barbara Stanwyck or Rosalind Russell as successful businesswomen were dream entertainments.
Breaking the Glass Ceiling
Removing the glass ceiling is a complicated process that requires effort on many fronts. State and federal governments, businesses, educational organizations, and women play critical roles in eradicating gender barriers (Newman, 2016). The government has various measures at its disposal to overcome existing workplace obstacles that hamper women’s advancement. The government can serve as a driving force for advancing women’s rights viewpoints and practices by increasing awareness of gender inequality, the advantages of gender equality, and the negative consequences of gender inequality on women, the corporate sector, and the state (Newman, 2016). Government policy and law may help eliminate discriminatory behaviors and artificial obstacles, while programs and initiatives can help advance our knowledge of the most effective barriers-busting solutions.
Additionally, implementation and assessment of current anti-discrimination laws must be robust to tear down obstacles that impede women’s advancement. Before the glass barrier’s shattering, companies must be engaged in their commitment to gender diversity and equality. Programs are used by organizations that have been effective in bridging the gap.
Moreover, extensive, organization-specific initiatives are required to remove institutional, administrative, and cultural obstacles. Establishing voluntary goals for women’s participation on boards, administrative panels, senior executives, and participating in active outreach and hiring women are all part of this (De 2017). Companies must implement flexible working practices, work-life balance policies, and efficient channels to discover, nurture, and encourage women to overcome structural obstacles. The establishment of mentorship programs in companies is an essential means of assisting women in moving up the professional ladder. Such initiatives should select outstanding executives of both genders to act as mentors to boost women’s ambitions and establish objectives and paths that will help them advance in their professions.
Ultimately, executive coaching approaches must be developed that assist women in developing critical management skills and identifying and leveraging their strengths, becoming comfortable with taking risks, increasing their confidence, and providing tools and techniques for bypassing existing obstacles (Newman, 2016). Women must build their social capital by establishing support systems, finding sponsorships within their working institutions, obtaining mentors, marketing themselves, and expressing the value they offer to the employment (Newman, 2016).
Race, Class, and Gender
Unpaid work division within families and across communities is both a gender-specific and a class-based conflict. According to research on the distribution of free labor within families, women’s negotiating power increases with wages (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018). Consequently, higher-earning females devote substantially less time on ‘second-shift house chores than lower-earning females. According to Morgenroth & Ryan (2018), the gap in total time spent on housekeeping each week among the wealthiest and lowest-earning females is as big as the male-female divide. Reduced overall housework hours for upper and middle-class women indicate a move to paid household work, as females with more means transfer housekeeping duties to low pay women. They also eliminate the necessity for intra-household negotiations among more affluent females and their married couples (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). Rising wages have made it much simpler for higher-earning ladies to stay employed and ostensibly responsible for housework while decreasing their hours of free work (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). As such, low-earning females, on the other hand, have fewer choices for shortening the time they devote to household chores.
However, women’s occupational and cultural circumstances in the workplace differ according to socioeconomic status. When women are in the minority in a professional or work setting, gender has a magnified role in their employment (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). Women who work in professions where males predominate suffer increased gender prejudice, and new research indicates that this bias may be higher for upper-class women than for middle-class women (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). The rise in gender prejudice may improve the recognition of women of the upper class while possibly compromising class recognition. Women executives and professionals gain professionally from an increase in the number of women in management roles (Harris & Patton, 2019). However, dependence on the minority of women executives may increase gender identity and reduce class identification.
Women with low salaries prefer to work in jobs with high levels of women, but they do not profit from same-sex peers to improve their careers. Compulsory, non-standard schedules are concentrated disproportionally in low pay employment, imposing on lower-class women consequences for family, social, and health issues (De, 2017). Lower-class occupations remove men and women from conventional sexual roles by following low earnings and low scheduled work (De, 2017). Working in low-salary, feminine professions and related economic and familial difficulties may reduce the gender identity of women and enhance class identification. In short, in many different locations, gender disparity may be seen. Women make less money than males on general, even with comparable education level in similar professions. Females are least likely to be corporate leaders, marginalized in areas such as engineering and technology, and are much more inclined to shoulder the majority of child care responsibilities. In significant ways, social class affects our life prospects
Women in Man’s World
Women’s managerial obstacles have been extensively discussed in significant publications, financial and social media sections, and academic papers. Among the most pervasive problems are age-old gender stereotypes, according to which women and men are expected to fulfill distinct economic and social responsibilities (Wright, 2016). Two other issues are family obligations and male-dominated business culture. These are mainly affected by centuries-old religious, cultural, and social traditions that remain firmly entrenched in all areas, despite significant workplace and societal changes. This has historically resulted in certain professions being seen as more appropriate for women and men (Wright, 2016). Historically, management, corporate administration, and public decision-making were regarded as male realms. For many decades, these standards have also guided school curricula and recruiting and promotion practices. While these issues are being addressed to eradicate gender prejudice, they remain ingrained in the psyches of a wide range of men and women.
Another reason women may have a more challenging time being chosen for top management positions because their leadership expertise is not varied enough. Females have never been exposed to various kinds of business operations throughout their employment (Wright, 2016). As a result, they have never acquired adequate expertise in general leadership across many functional departments. In emerging areas, the ILO business survey supports patterns observed in a variety of research and surveys (Wright, 2016). The predominance of women in particular kinds of management mirrors the phenomenon known as “glass ceilings,” or gender inequality within managerial professions. While women continue to advance to higher levels of management, they have a propensity to cluster in specific managerial roles.
A Change for the Future of Women in these Roles
There are many methods to alter the future of women in management roles, such as attaining equal pay and occupational segregation. The wage disparity between men and women has gradually narrowed over the decades, but much more needs to be done (Newman, 2016). Across all sectors, there is a 23.1 percent wage difference, with males earning $26,853 more per year than women. According to Newman (2016), a significant reason for the vast pay disparity is that many women work part-time hours. When hourly rates of pay are computed, the difference shrinks to approximately 15%, as per Cundiff & Vescio (2016). Furthermore, although there is no substantial gender pay gap in low-paying occupations, the disparity in the number of males and females at top levels in companies is “almost likely the main cause for the ongoing gender pay discrepancy,” according to Cundiff & Vescio (2016). As a result, for the wage gap to decrease in the future, administrations will need to adopt regulations that guarantee businesses hire more women, especially at higher levels of management.
On the other hand, by 2030, about half of women would need to change occupations to remove all gender-based employment segregation. This theoretical desegregation attempt might occur if 49 percent of women left their present female-dominated professions for male-dominated ones (Cundiff & Vescio, 2016). Conversely, 49% of males might transfer from male- to female-dominated professions. In contrast, about a quarter of females and a quarter of males could migrate to professions not monopolized by their genders. In scientific jargon, this level of employment segregation is quantified by the dissimilarity index D, which was 0.49 in 2016, or 49%.
Read more: Gender Essay Topics: An Overview of the Relevant Themes
Conclusion
In conclusion, with all the many ideas and explanations in mind, it can be stated that the presence of a glass ceiling has a significant relationship to the perception of the distinct treatment. Moreover, this is a matter of ethics for companies today, as gender equality is a matter of ethics. As a result, executives in contemporary companies should address the discriminatory behaviors and policies that contribute to women’s unequal treatment at work. There is no other way to guarantee women have equal opportunities at work except to grasp the ethical and other problems surrounding the glass ceiling. Businesses must address glass ceiling problems as soon as possible in order to fully enjoy the advantages of a worldwide corporate environment since a varied staff is a more engaged workforce, which ultimately helps the firm thrive.
